Article

Repair of an endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced rectal perforation with band ligation.

Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea.
Gastrointestinal endoscopy (Impact Factor: 6.71). 02/2009; 69(1):160-1; discussion 161. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.07.008
Source: PubMed
0 Bookmarks
 · 
75 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the preferred endoscopic technique for the endoscopic treatment of acute esophageal variceal bleeding. EBL has also been used to treat nonvariceal bleeding. Recently, Han et al demonstrated that EBL can be a feasible and safe alternate technique for the management of iatrogenic gastric perforation especially in cases in which closure with endoclips is difficult. EBL is technically simpler to perform than other methods and provides a good view of the lesions under direct pressure and suction from the transparent ligation cap. EBL can be used even if the diameter of the perforation is greater than 10 mm or if there is a severe tangential angle. In this commentary, we discuss the efficacy and safety of EBL for the closure of iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforation. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of EBL for the treatment of nonvariceal bleeding.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 07/2013; 19(27):4271-6. · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Iatrogenic gastric perforation is one of the most serious complications during therapeutic endoscopy, despite significant advances in endoscopic techniques and devices. This case study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of the rescue endoscopic band ligation (EBL) technique in iatrogenic gastric wall perforation following the failure of primary endoclip closure. Five patients were enrolled in this study. These patients underwent emergency endoscopy following the onset of acute gastric wall perforation during endoscopic procedures. The outcome measurements were primary technical success and immediate or delayed procedure-related complications. Successful endoscopic closure using band ligation was reported in all patients, with no complication occurring. We conclude that EBL may be a feasible and safe alternate technique for the management of acute gastric perforation, especially in cases where closure is difficult with endoclips.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 02/2013; 19(6):955-9. · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent reports have indicated several instances of successful treatment of bowel perforation by using endoscopic band ligation (EBL) when treatment with endoclipping is unsuccessful, but this salvage method has not been investigated in any prospective model. Herein we aimed to compare the technical feasibility and efficacy of EBL and endoclip use in intraluminal closure of colon perforation, in an ex vivo model. Standardized colonic perforations were created using fresh porcine colon and subsequently closed by full-thickness interrupted sutures, endoclip (QuickClip2(TM) ), or EBL. Each closure site was tested with compressed air by using a digital pressure monitor for evaluating leak pressure. No significant differences were noted between the endoclip and EBL in leak pressures. Mean (± SD) pressures for air leakage from the perforations closed using the different devices were as follows: normal colon samples, 52.0 ± 13.2 mmHg; perforations closed with hand-sewn sutures, 32.3 ± 8.3 mmHg; perforations closed with endoclipping, 53.5 ± 22.7 mmHg; and perforations closed with EBL, 50.4 ± 12.5 mmHg. Time taken for closure by EBL was significantly less than that for closure by endoclipping (3.2 ± 1.7 min vs 6.8 ± 1.3 min, P < 0.01). Further, the number of devices used to achieve complete closure in the EBL group was lower than that with endoclipping (1.6 ± 0.5 vs 3.7 ± 0.8, P < 0.01). Endoluminal closure of a 1.5-cm colon perforation with EBL decreased procedure time and was not inferior in leak pressure compared with endoclipping in this ex vivo porcine model.
    Digestive Endoscopy 03/2014; · 1.61 Impact Factor